This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the
award of Arbitrator Lennart V. Larson. The Arbitrator sustained the Activity's
grievance, finding that the Union violated the parties' 1981 collective
bargaining agreement by contacting the Army & Air Force Exchange Service's
headquarters over a local health and safety matter.

The Union filed exceptions under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Activity did not file an
opposition.

We conclude that the Union has not established that (1)
the Arbitrator exceeded his authority, (2) the selection of the Arbitrator was
improper, or (3) the Arbitrator's conduct of the grievance proceedings was
improper. Accordingly, we deny the exceptions.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

The Activity filed a grievance claiming that the Union
violated the parties' 1981 collective bargaining agreement when it contacted
the Exchange Service's headquarters regarding a local safety and health matter
that the Activity was attempting to resolve. The Union denied the grievance but
refused to join the Activity in requesting a list of arbitrators in order to
select an arbitrator to resolve the grievance. The Union also refused to join
the Activity in selecting an arbitrator from a list provided to the Activity by
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

When the Union continued to refuse to participate in the
selection of an arbitrator, the Activity selected Arbitrator Larson without the
Union's participation. The Activity also filed an unfair labor practice (ULP)
charge against the Union. That ULP charge led to the issuance of a decision and
recommended order of the Chief Administrative Law Judge. When no exceptions
were filed, the Authority adopted the decision and recommended order and found
that the Union had violated the Statute by refusing to proceed to arbitration.
The Authority ordered the Union to proceed to arbitration on request of the
Activity. As a result, the Activity's grievance was ultimately submitted to
arbitration before Arbitrator Larson.

Before the Arbitrator, the Union raised several issues of
arbitrability. As relevant to this case, the Union claimed that the Activity's
grievance was moot because prior to the arbitration hearing, the parties' 1981
collective bargaining agreement was superseded by a new master agreement. The
Arbitrator rejected the Union's contention that the grievance was moot. The
Arbitrator concluded that the grievance did not lose its validity because the
contract under which it arose had expired. The Arbitrator also noted that the
arbitration was held after the 1981 agreement had been superseded because the
Union had refused to participate in the proceeding until ordered to do so by
the Authority.

On the merits, the Arbitrator sustained the grievance. He
determined that the Union had violated the 1981 agreement by communicating with
the Exchange Service's headquarters. As a remedy, the Arbitrator ruled that in
view of the new master agreement, it was sufficient to state that the Union had
violated the 1981 agreement by its actions.

III. Union Exceptions

The Union contends that the Arbitrator exceeded his
authority. The Union argues that the grievance was not properly before the
Arbitrator because the 1981 agreement had expired by the time of the hearing
before the Arbitrator. The Union also contends that the Arbitrator refused to
rule on the arbitrability issues raised by the Union prior to the hearing and
that it was not allowed to participate in the selection of the
Arbitrator.

IV. Discussion

We conclude that the Union has not established that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of
the Statute. The Union has failed to establish that the award is contrary to
any law, rule, or regulation or that the award is deficient on other grounds
similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations
cases.

The Union's contention that the Arbitrator exceeded his
authority because the 1981 agreement expired before the award was issued
provides no basis for finding the award deficient. SeeUnited
Steelworkers of America v. EnterpriseWheel & Car Corp., 363
U.S. 593 (1960) (the Court held that an award rendered after the expiration of
the collective bargaining agreement was enforceable); Piper v. Meco,
Inc., 302 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Ohio 1968), aff'd 412 F.2d 752 (6th
Cir. 1969). The U.S. District Court in Piper rejected the contention
that the award was unenforceable because the collective bargaining agreement
had expired before the award was issued. The court held that such a contention
"would permit a party simply to stall the arbitration hearing until after the
expiration of the contract and thus not be bound by the award." 302 F.Supp. at
927.

The Union's contention that the award is deficient
because it was not allowed to participate in the selection of the Arbitrator
provides no basis for finding the award deficient. As found by the Authority in
the related unfair labor practice case, the Union was requested to participate
in the selection of the Arbitrator, but refused to do so in violation of
section 7116(b)(1) and (8) of the Statute. The Union cannot now complain about
the selection of the Arbitrator.

The Union's contention that the award is deficient
because the Arbitrator refused to resolve the issues relating to arbitrability
in advance of the hearing also provides no basis for finding the award
deficient. See, forexample, Oklahoma Air Logistics
Center, Tinker Air ForceBase, Oklahoma and American Federation of
GovernmentEmployees, Local 916, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 30 FLRA 20
(1987) (the fact that the arbitrator conducted the hearing in a manner that one
party finds objectionable does not provide a basis for finding an award
deficient).